What makes this even more ridiculous is that Posterous is just grabbing the pictures from a Twitpic user's public RSS feed. Unlike the Facebook / Power issue, there's not even a privacy concern since Posterous doesn't ask for user / password info.
There are free / unlicensed / pirated Microsoft web servers too -- nowhere near as much as Linux of course. Still, I'd love to see a survey comparing Microsoft server licenses sold vs. actual servers in use.
Humorously enough, it turns out the boy accused of cyberbullying was actually innocent.
The boy was a poor student in language arts classes, yet the text messages were reasonably grammatical. Mr. Wu dictated a basic sentence for the boy to write down. It was riddled with errors.
Next, an elementary school principal interviewed the fifth-grade boys separately.
By Thursday, Mr. Orsini telephoned the girl's parents with his unsettling conclusion:
The boy had never sent the texts. The lost phone had been found by someone else and used to send the messages. Who wrote them? A reference or two might suggest another sixth grader.
Which raises another issue -- how can you expect a school to deal with cyberbullying when the bully might not even be a student at that school?
The issue in the suit is actually the opposite of what AC brings up -- i.e. that customers let GoDaddy put up parking pages on their behalf.
The argument is, I think, that the only reason you put up a parking page is if you intend to squat. By opting into this program, these customers are expressly telling GoDaddy that they registered a domain name for the sole purpose of squatting, rather than building their own content. It's the equivalent of sending an e-mail to YouTube with the URL of a video you uploaded and an admission that the video infringes on someone's copyright. Even though the e-mail is being sent by you, and not the rightholder, there's an argument that YouTube should take it down now that they know.
The obvious response to this analogy is that the fact that someone is squatting doesn't mean they're infringing on anyone's trademark. It's possible, even likely, that they're squatting on a non-infringing domain name. Still, squatting is (almost) inherently a sketchy activity, and that's why the lawyers are circling around GoDaddy.
Except ... there are no First Amendment issues in this post. If you want to talk about the 1st Amendment, go here: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100625/0005149957.shtml. Mike at least raises a small first amendment question at the end there.
Question re. first amendment - To what extent does the DMCA's misrepresentation provisions mitigate abuse? If you were abusing DMCA notices to take down political speech, I imagine that the speaker could bring suit a la Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.
The specific point the research raises, I think, is that it's unclear how fair use plays into ACTA and the Digital Economy Act.
Legally, I think the bigger problem with copyright legislation is not that it's getting "tougher" on infringement, but that the fair use exceptions are so vaguely defined. To figure out fair use in America, you have to use this indeterminate 4-factor balancing test. That gives courts and lawyers lots of room to maneuver, but it's confusing as heck for consumers and content producers. This, combined with the costs of being sued, has a substantial chilling effect on a lot of speech that would (should?) probably be considered fair use.
Tossing in a bright line or two into fair use law would probably go a long way towards fixing copyright abuse. I'd be a lot more comfortable with a three-strikes law if fair use was fixed (and if due process was guaranteed).
Okay, now you're just being nitpicky about terminology. Also, you're wrong.
Within a legal context, "state action" is used to distinguish between acts done by private actor (e.g. a corporation) and acts by any political entity with coercive power, not just the 50 states.
The federal government is a "state" in that sense. It's why we say Barack Obama is America's "Head of State" or Hillary Clinton is America's "Secretary of State."
And at any rate, you ignore the overall point -- incorporation or not, why are you even talking about the First Amendment here? This particular post implicates nothing in the First Amendment. If you have a beef about the way this site treats the First Amendment, you should comment on a post that actually raises a First Amendment issue.
Copyright of music is distinct from copyright of sound recordings. That's why songwriters and recording companies sometimes go after copyright infringers separately.
"Sound recordings" as opposed to "music" is actually explicitly mentioned in the Copyright Act.
To the extent that there's no creative element in just the recording, the argument is that it's similar to photography. Photographs are clearly covered by copyright (and photographers argue that there is an element of skill and creativity in it), so why shouldn't sound recordings?
Er ... there's a standard such that you expect Techdirt to treat pro-copyright groups and ASCAP equally? Mike (and his audience) clearly have strong opinions about copyright. Accusing them of a double standard on copyright is like accusing the Republicans of being conservative.
Also, the First Amendment talks about state action. There's virtually no scholarship that says Mike, a non-state actor, has to take ASCAP seriously.
The real problem isn't this case but the Supreme Court case Eldred v. Ashcroft, which held that retroactively extending copyright terms (e.g. under the Sunny Bono Act) was constitutional. This is just the logical extreme of that. Once you ignore how copyright is a "contract" between the right-holder and the public, then there's no limit to how far back you can retroactively extend copyright.
His argument is that CDA 230 prevents libelers from internalizing some of the costs of their act. This is true. Post CDA 230, your odds of being caught for actual libel are much lower. However, this cost-internalization problem is also true of libel plaintiffs going after the online posters that 230 indirectly protects. Most of these anonymous commenters simply don't have the resources or incentive to fight a libel action, meaning that absent 230, plaintiffs could have a powerful chilling effect on online speech, especially in areas where the libelous nature of the act is somewhat ambiguous.
Section 230 may be a "subsidy" to potential libelers, but I'd argue it's meant to counteract the existing cost imbalance favoring plaintiffs.
This is an exercise in deterrence against other potential plaintiffs interested in suing RapidShare -- i.e. if you waste my time and money with a stupid lawsuit, I'll waste your time and money with a stupid lawsuit.
I remember a post about a collection agency forcing an owner to pay even though he had signed agreements from the musicians that they would only play songs they owned the rights to themselves.
Is that actually the law? I'd love to see this challenged in court. The proposition that any musician who performs in public is considered a cover band by default seems indefensible to me. And if it is indefensible, then coffee shops can simply make the artists sign indemnity agreements. Problem solved!
I would be careful with the utilitarianism. You don't want to come off as "it's okay to screw over one guy (the IP rightholder) if it helps everyone else." I think your actual argument is that it's not necessary to screw over the one guy (if he uses a different business model) to help everyone else.
The problem though is that these terms are all relative. If you take away half a billionaire's fortune, his standard of living will probably not be harmed one bit. At the same time however, you have literally inflicted $500 million worth of harm on him. Not sure if you really want to get into that debate though. Economic debates are relatively simple compared to the shit show that debates about morality are.
On the post: Twitpic Overreacts To Competitor's Tool That Helps Export Data
It's an RSS feed
On the post: Homeland Security Works For Disney Now? Announces Shut Down Of Movie Sites At Disney
On the post: Microsoft's Comparison To Linux In The Server Market Conveniently Leaves Out Free
Unlicensed Microsoft Servers
On the post: Should Schools Be Involved In Disciplining Students For Off-Campus Bullying?
Read the article
Humorously enough, it turns out the boy accused of cyberbullying was actually innocent.
Which raises another issue -- how can you expect a school to deal with cyberbullying when the bully might not even be a student at that school?
On the post: The Lack Of A Billion Dollar Pureplay Open Source Software Company Shows The Market Is Working Properly
Re: Pureplay?
On the post: A Week After Feds Approve Movie Derivatives Market, Congress Bans It
They've killed off a potential business model too!
Short it.
Profit!!!
On the post: The Oscars vs. GoDaddy
Re: Re:
The argument is, I think, that the only reason you put up a parking page is if you intend to squat. By opting into this program, these customers are expressly telling GoDaddy that they registered a domain name for the sole purpose of squatting, rather than building their own content. It's the equivalent of sending an e-mail to YouTube with the URL of a video you uploaded and an admission that the video infringes on someone's copyright. Even though the e-mail is being sent by you, and not the rightholder, there's an argument that YouTube should take it down now that they know.
The obvious response to this analogy is that the fact that someone is squatting doesn't mean they're infringing on anyone's trademark. It's possible, even likely, that they're squatting on a non-infringing domain name. Still, squatting is (almost) inherently a sketchy activity, and that's why the lawyers are circling around GoDaddy.
On the post: ASCAP Claiming That Creative Commons Must Be Stopped; Apparently They Don't Actually Believe In Artist Freedom
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Will Viacom/YouTube Ruling Lead To More Takedowns And Fewer Fair Use Reviews?
First Amendment
On the post: New Research Suggests Digital Economy Act & ACTA Will Stifle Creativity
Fair Use
Legally, I think the bigger problem with copyright legislation is not that it's getting "tougher" on infringement, but that the fair use exceptions are so vaguely defined. To figure out fair use in America, you have to use this indeterminate 4-factor balancing test. That gives courts and lawyers lots of room to maneuver, but it's confusing as heck for consumers and content producers. This, combined with the costs of being sued, has a substantial chilling effect on a lot of speech that would (should?) probably be considered fair use.
Tossing in a bright line or two into fair use law would probably go a long way towards fixing copyright abuse. I'd be a lot more comfortable with a three-strikes law if fair use was fixed (and if due process was guaranteed).
On the post: ASCAP Claiming That Creative Commons Must Be Stopped; Apparently They Don't Actually Believe In Artist Freedom
Re: Re: Re:
Within a legal context, "state action" is used to distinguish between acts done by private actor (e.g. a corporation) and acts by any political entity with coercive power, not just the 50 states.
The federal government is a "state" in that sense. It's why we say Barack Obama is America's "Head of State" or Hillary Clinton is America's "Secretary of State."
And at any rate, you ignore the overall point -- incorporation or not, why are you even talking about the First Amendment here? This particular post implicates nothing in the First Amendment. If you have a beef about the way this site treats the First Amendment, you should comment on a post that actually raises a First Amendment issue.
On the post: Apple Sued For Copyright Infringement Because Third Party App Has Someone Else's Bird Sounds
Re: Re: Re: What????
"Sound recordings" as opposed to "music" is actually explicitly mentioned in the Copyright Act.
To the extent that there's no creative element in just the recording, the argument is that it's similar to photography. Photographs are clearly covered by copyright (and photographers argue that there is an element of skill and creativity in it), so why shouldn't sound recordings?
On the post: ASCAP Claiming That Creative Commons Must Be Stopped; Apparently They Don't Actually Believe In Artist Freedom
Re:
Also, the First Amendment talks about state action. There's virtually no scholarship that says Mike, a non-state actor, has to take ASCAP seriously.
On the post: Where Is The Evidence That Kicking People Off The Internet For File Sharing Is Needed?
Re:
On the post: Terrible News: Court Says It's Okay To Remove Content From The Public Domain And Put It Back Under Copyright
Eldred v. Ashcroft
On the post: Does Section 230 Need Fixing?
CDA 230 does need to be fixed
His argument is that CDA 230 prevents libelers from internalizing some of the costs of their act. This is true. Post CDA 230, your odds of being caught for actual libel are much lower. However, this cost-internalization problem is also true of libel plaintiffs going after the online posters that 230 indirectly protects. Most of these anonymous commenters simply don't have the resources or incentive to fight a libel action, meaning that absent 230, plaintiffs could have a powerful chilling effect on online speech, especially in areas where the libelous nature of the act is somewhat ambiguous.
Section 230 may be a "subsidy" to potential libelers, but I'd argue it's meant to counteract the existing cost imbalance favoring plaintiffs.
On the post: Rapidshare Countersues Perfect 10 For Being A 'Copyright Troll' Who Only 'Shakes Down' Others
Deterrence
On the post: More People Realizing That ASCAP And BMI Are Killing Local Music Scenes
Do you have to pay?
Is that actually the law? I'd love to see this challenged in court. The proposition that any musician who performs in public is considered a cover band by default seems indefensible to me. And if it is indefensible, then coffee shops can simply make the artists sign indemnity agreements. Problem solved!
On the post: Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?
Utilitarianism
The problem though is that these terms are all relative. If you take away half a billionaire's fortune, his standard of living will probably not be harmed one bit. At the same time however, you have literally inflicted $500 million worth of harm on him. Not sure if you really want to get into that debate though. Economic debates are relatively simple compared to the shit show that debates about morality are.
On the post: California Judge In Charge Of Enforcing Laws Against Robocalls, Using Robocalls Herself
Next >>